THE HOBBIT WILL FAIL

This is an editorial proving that The Hobbit won't be a good trilogy. Also why Peter Jackson isn't that good of a director.

Follow MrSotoMan:

By MrSotoMan - 8/4/2012

2012 is coming close to an end and we can't stress enough how much movies have been so great this year. Whether you disagree or agree, whether you are a Nolanite or Marvelnite; movies really have made a difference this year. One movie though that stands out at the end of the year is THE HOBBIT. The Hobbit gets released on December 14th this year. But is this movie going to be worth while? Is it going to be what we have been looking for in a very long time since The Hobbit's development in 2004? DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT TO ME!

So as any fan of any adaptation there is always something to bitch at. Story, characters, writing, direction, cast. When I found out Peter Jackson was directing The Hobbit, I jumped with joy. But why two films? I didn't wanna get into it but hoped Peter Jackson could deliver something as epic as the LoTR trilogy in two films. I do miss Middle Earth and this was the only way we can see this movies in theaters. When the first trailer hit I didn't jump with excitement but I wanted to see it just didn't have that OMG I CAN'T WAIT factor to me. I read the book in 7th grade and then read it again after the trailer hit. Again why does everybody think this movie is going to be so awesome or EPIC? I never understood that, in fact I don't think any body even knows what epic means in film sometimes. So back to what the point of this editorial is explaining why I think The Hobbit will fail. Here is why and even though it's one or two flaws, they are very apparent and can hurt the movie really bad.

Splitting the films is a terrible idea. Fans of the book will know that The Hobbit is less than 400 pages compared to the LoTR trilogy to which all the books are over 500 pages long. As a film it worked, it delivered this new magnificent world of Middle Earth. All three films we're put perfectly into place with Frodo going on a quest but it gave you other characters to love. Aragon, Gandalf The Grey and White (in the movie I never saw the difference honestly but the book clearly states it a lot more) Legoles, Sam, Bilbo Baggins, Sauron etc. all characters who stood out to moviegoers and me at the time. Now that The Hobbit is coming out and Warner Bros. owning New Line means that they wanted to of course capitalize on LoTR as much as possible seeing how much of the fan-base has grown through the years. Making The Hobbit is probably the only logical reasoning to go back to Middle Earth. But it's pretty obvious they don't care about the book, the book is only (no shit) 310 pages. What are you explaining? The Hobbit book was a fast paced action adventure, it didn't have slow moments. It's not even that good honestly it just explains who Bilbo is and how he got the ring and the adventure that is around him. Another reason I see this movie sucking is that it is pretty much THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING! How? Wizard comes to a hobbit and asks him to join him for an adventure, he's hesitant at first but then decides to leave and have an entire group with him to join to where Bilbo actually goes through his own personal journey as well. But to be completely insulting to the audience we feel it's necessary to add Frodo in The Hobbit, Legoles, and other characters as well to make the whole thing come together nicely. It's insulting, the book has other things that connect solely to the trilogy, why have these characters that are not even present in the book to be put in the movie. Instead they are put in at random for no reasoning at all.

So to explain all this they split the moves in two, to make it all worse they instead decide to split it in 3 films. A lot of fans can say this bullshit excuse of OH HE IS USING TOLKIENS NOTES...IT'S COOL....There is a reason why they are called notes. Meaning Tolkien wasn't so sure to put it in the final book or maybe was left out because he didn't feel too strongly on it. This is where the movie just heads straight into fan-fiction. Sure fan-fiction is a cool read but is it something to waste over 500 million dollars alone for all three movies? Three films for 310 pages, does that make sense? It's a fast paced action adventure fantasy, don't get me wrong it does have epic moments, but not as epic as LOTR at all. This is where I point out why Peter Jackson is nothing more than just someone who is in it for cash only. It's sad because he has a lot of talent. You can tell he really cares about the source material shown in LOTR trilogy. But thats all I feel he has done that is good. I wouldn't state King Kong as a good film either. It's ok but the movie tries to remake an American classic with British actors entirely. And I mean ENTIRELY! The only two Americans we're Colin Hanks and Jack Black. The movie not only smacks King Kong in the face but it tries to deliver this epic feel to it. He succeeds in that part yea because Skull Island is supposed to feel epic, but why would you wanna remake something that has been said to be a favorite? Jackson never understood how great the original was. Sure it was old, but it was groundbreaking. Remaking a groundbreaking film is ridiculous as these Hobbit prequels, IT'S JUST FOR CASH! Why do you think after King Kong he really didn't do anything with movies, what District 9? He just produced it. Again he takes these prequel trilogies as I guess his retirement fund. He's slapping these fans in the face with these prequels, in fact hurting what the other films stood for. But this is coming from a director who really doesn't do anything original except remakes or go to source materials. I'm sure when he directs his heart is in the right place but he doesn't look at what people would want or fans will care about. In fact he does do what fans care about, bu making a three part trilogy of a 310 page book. Fans are caring because they are either fans of Jackson who think he is an absolute great director or they are just fans of the movies and not the books. Other fans care because well they read the books, play the games, watched the movies. I read the books after the second film came out to gear up for the third film. I grew up watching these films like if it was this generation's Star Wars (seriously if you can't find the similarities get the fuck off this site, your not a geek or nerd) it was a trilogy to established a huge fan base and franchise that is still talked about till this day. At least Lucas had a point to his prequels even though you already knew Darth Vadar was going to die, it's interesting to see how Darth Vadar came to be. Lucas failed though and Jackson will as well.

Anyone who says this movie is going to be awesome is in total high hopes for the movie obviously and that's fine. You people do care and you are fans, but I'm telling you when this movie comes out I suspect a mixed reaction. We all know Bilbo's going to make it, we all know he is going to give the ring to Frodo. This prequel is nothing more than just another way Warner Bros. can jump right into another franchise that is an easy way to make money. Don't believe me? You'll see. Again this is an editorial to not bash the movie but I do believe this movie is going to fail. It has this huge amount of hype and it's pretty balsy that they want it to make three parts when the first two we're made. Why not just release the footage on DVD? I respect Jackson but at times I really don't. He's got a good vision on most of his films but sometimes you could tell he's just making it for purposes to which he believes he can make massive money on. The Hobbit will probably make a shit ton of money but will have this lukewarm response, a response not as strong as the first trilogy. Then people are going to find ways to bitch about it like everyone does here (including me) and then say it sucks compared to the first trilogy. It won't be the best adaptation, it clearly isn't.

Comments? Sound off if you feel. Again not calling out anyone if this is something you wanna discuss or feel differently towards too then go ahead. You don't have to take my word for it, but on my birthday (DECEMBER 14TH NO LIE) I can sit here and laugh and write in the comments (if not too stoned or drunk) I TOLD YOU SO. I hope you guys say I TOLD YOU SO TO ME and prove that I'm wrong, shit I hope I am wrong about this movie, hopefully it could be good. That chance for me though is a 15 percent chance out of the 85 percent that I feel this movie will fail. Again we will all have OUR TOLD YOU SO'S.

DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and "safe harbor" provisions. CBM will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please contact us for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. You may also learn more about our copyright and trademark policies HERE.

0

Think this article is front page worthy? Click on the "thumbs up" to the right! Popular articles will appear on the homepage automatically!

I'm gonna say I'm bias because the Hobbit is my favorite book ever. period. However, that also means I have extremely high expectations for it and a vivid picture of what how I think events should happen. I admit I too was skeptical about two films let aloe three and you are correct that The Hobbit is a short book, however you pointed out that it is fast paced, but I disagree. I believe it just has a lot going on. There is a tremendous amount of tuff that goes on in the Hobbit not to mention a fight with a dragon and a battle of five armies that are covered with merely several pages. Trust me there's a enough for at least two movies. But I too think a third movie is uneccessary, but they are using the appendices Tolkien wrote to ADD to middle earth, not his notes that he decided not include (if I am correct). So I hope there is enough to draw from, but it wouldn't surprise me if Jackson adds stuff, which I hope he doesn't. But like i said alot goes on in the book and by telling the story in multiple movies you allow for more dialogue and character development among the thirteen dwarves and to further expand events merely mentioned in the book.

How can you call any if this proof that that the Hobbit will suck and that Peter Jackson isn't that good of a director? Your making a lot if assumptions. For all we know he has enough footage to justify making 4 movies. He is a passionate film maker. So much so that he goes out of his way and writes, produces and directs his own films. Not to mention he built, financed and runs his own special effects company. He even takes the time out of his insanely busy schedule to give us the fans in-depth behind the scene video blogs throughout the filming process and jam packs his dvd's and Bly-rays full of the extras we crave to show us the full scale of the production. If Peter Jackson says he feels that The Hobbit can be a trilogy, I'm on board.

Apart from the $$$$$$$....The descriptions are much less detailed in the Hobbit than in the Lord of the Rings. A LOT of stuff happens, and it all happens very quickly, or rather, summed up briefly.

I'm going to be a douche and Tolkien to Collins in that very small respect - which is justification for why the Mockingjay movie will be split up into two movies.

This may be the last Middle Earth franchise, and I imagine WB, New Line, and MGM are going to milk this for all it is worth. Much as I am loathe to admit it, the reality also is that Ian McKellen will likely not be doing much acting in the future, and as a fan of his, I'm actually glad the studio is going to show much more of Gandalf.

Have you ever watched the appendices in the LOTRs? Each movie has like 5 hours worth of behind the scenes footage which is everybit as interesting as the movies themselves. Sure every director shows us some of the work that goes into their movies but none of them including the ones you listed go as above and beyond as Jackson has. And Peter didn't opt out of directing the Hobbit in the beginning because he didn't think the Hobbit could be as good as LOTRs (which I'm not saying it will be better) He specifically said he did nit want to compete with himself. He poured a lot of blood, sweat and tears into LOTRs all back to back to back and who could blame the guy if he wasn't looking to put himself through that all over again. But he stepped up to the plate and from all the video blogs we have seen so far, things appear to be right on par with everything else he has done. In the end it doesn't matter if it isn't as good as LOTRs because the fact is, LOTRs is simply a much bigger and more compelling story than The Hobbit. All he has to do is do The Hobbit justice and I could care less if he decided it would take 10 movies to tell the story. I could care less if he milks enough money out of the series to buy the entire country of New Zealand and rename it Middle Earth. What I do care about is quality film making and that's something Peter never comes up short on and has given us no reason to believe he will deliver anything less with The Hobbit.

And to the point about him only doing movies with source material... you say he only does source material movies as if adaptions are an easy thing to do. That's a pretty condescending way to put it coming from someone who I'm sure has never attempted to adapt 3 giant books into a trilogy. Is this your justification for saying he is not a good director? That he only adapts books into movies? Even if I were to grant you this, you are not taking all the movies he has done prior to LOTRs into consideration. Heavenly Creatures, The Frighteners, not to mention all his signature low budget horror/comedy cult movies. There is a key to becoming a successful director in Hollywood. If you can make movies that people love at a very low cost to a studio, then it stands to reason that you can make big budget studio movies that people will also love. And if people love your movies, it stands to reason that you are a good director.

I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence when I said you had likely never attempted to adapt 3 books into a trilogy. Your response to that sounded a bit outraged, lol. Just clearing the air. But I really do not see what difference it makes if all a director ever choses to do for the rest of their career is adapt books into movies. It does not say anything about their ability to DIRECT. To write perhaps. But the majority of directors don't write any of their own scripts and screenplays. They read one they like that somebody else wrote and they apdapt it to film. Everything is an adaption in that respect. What exactly is wrong with adapting a book to a movie and how does that in anyway say anything about Petes ability to direct, not write but DIRECT.

And who cares if he remade King Kong? (apparently you do.) King Kong is one of those movies that gets remade about every 25 years. As technology changes and the ability to bring a more life like Kong to the bigscreen increases and Hollywood will likely continue this trend. Saying it was disrespectful to remake King Kong is a heavy handed statement to make. He is simply a director who put his own modern stamp on a classic and if it wasn't him, it likely would have been some other director somewhere down the line. King Kong is like the big screen version of a famous play that everyone knows but like so much that they go back and watch it everytime it's reintroduced. It's not disrespectful, it's a story worth retelling again and again and it's to be expected.

Again with the money thing! Who cares whether he gets 1 dollar or a billion dollars by the end of this series? Ate you implying that because he will make more money that he therefore no longer cares about the quality of his movies? That is an unjustified assumption to be making at this point. It sounds more like your afraid that 3 movies won't work. Do you honestly think that a viewing of The Hobbit is going to require you to dig into the appendices in order to understand the movie? That's what it sounds like your saying. That if we as the audience don't read both the Hobbit and the appendices prior to viewing the films that we will all be lost and confused. ALL you have to do is sit and watch. The is no prerequisite reading for this course. It will all be in the movie and it will all contribute to the story. And if your the type to complain because they added in parts that weren't in the book just because, then we simply will not be able to see eye to eye.

I don't know how you feel justified in saying 3 movies is pointless. We have no idea what they have in store for us. This will give us a more comlpete experience if anything. The one thing people tend to complain most about when it comes to adapting books they loves is that the filmmakers left out great moments from the book. Well now Pete can include as much as he wants, and he can even chose to add in and further develope moments in the book that have great on screen potential. It really seems premature to be saying the movie will fail at this point. Everything we have seen so far from the cast, costumes, props, sets, etc... Looks just as impressive as anything we have seen him do before. The time to say the Hobbit has fail is when and if (that's a really big "if") it fails. Then feel free to laugh all you want and say "I told you so, I told so". I could easily say that the new bond movie Skyfall will also fail (which I don't think it will) and if I turned out to be correct, that would not have put my former statement on any firmer ground. I had no good reason for saying it would fail in to first place. I just had a hunch which ended up being true. That's the only credit I would get and that's all the credit you will get. On that note... Good debate. :)